DOCSLIB.ORG

San Carlos Apache Tribe Energy Organization Analysis & Solar

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Carlos Apache Tribe Energy Organization Analysis & Solar San Carlos Apache Tribe Energy Organization Analysis & Solar Feasibility . Study 2012 funded by grants from the US Department of Energy Tribal Energy Program San Carlos Apache Mission Statement The Apache People will live a balanced life in harmony with spirituality, culture, language, and family unity in an ever-changing world and shall create a strategic framework for our tribe to grow and prosper. Reservation Boundary The Tribe and Reservation • 90 miles from Phoenix. • 2,400’ to 8,300’ elevation. • 1.83 million acres. • Grasslands, Sonoran desert and forests. • Rivers - Salt, Gila, Black, San Carlos. • Power - 100% purchased, 98% non- renewable, retail rates 2X+ Nat’l average. • 4 power providers – SCIP (BIA), APS, Graham County Coop, Morenci Mine. • Commercial hydropower potential – the 1930’s Coolidge Dam. • Excellent solar and geothermal potential. • Economy - government, ranching, farming, forestry, gemstones, traditional arts, outdoor recreation, gaming, hunting/fishing. • 14,600 enrolled Tribal members. • 11,700 resident Tribal members. • Communities - San Carlos, Bylas, Peridot. • Cutter - Casino/Resort, airport, sawmill. • 500+ “rural” residents. • Source of 90% of world’s peridot gemstones. • Salt River Canyon – “mini Grand Canyon”. • One of largest populations of southwestern willow flycatchers (ESA listed). • San Carlos Lake – 4th largest in Arizona (not recently – drought!), recreation, maybe hydropower again someday! San Carlos Apache Energy Strategy & Program 2008 - 2013 Energy Strategy & Program PURPOSE “Provides a framework for future energy initiatives that support the San Carlos Apache Tribe’s energy security and independence, and that will reduce the negative impacts of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions on the Tribe’s people and Reservation”. ********* “This Strategy sets the stage for a vigorous and forward-looking set of Tribal energy plans, projects, and programs”. 2008 - 2013 Energy ACTIONS • 2008: Energy goals in Tribal Strategic Plan. • 2009: $317,000 EECBG “entitlement” grant. • 2010 - 2012: EECBG programs & projects undertaken. • 2010: Hired & trained Tribal building energy auditors. • 2010 - 2012: Ongoing building energy audits. • 2011: $171,000 US DOE-funded energy organization grant. • 2011: Adopted Tribal Energy Strategy & Program (EECS). • 2012: Adopted Tribal Energy Organization Analysis (EOA). • 2012: $221,000 US DOE-funded solar feasibility study grant. • 2012: Hired Tribal energy program coordinator w/EOA grant. • 2012: Tribal radio station w/solar power - funded by EECBG. • 2012: Initiated solar feasibility study - Phase 1 complete. • 2010, 2011, 2012: San Carlos Apache Tribal Energy Summits. 2013 Energy PLANS • Complete solar feasibility study & launch tribal energy utility. • Build 1.4MW community-scale solar power @ Apache Gold Casino/Resort. • Install solar @ new Bylas elementary school. • Continued implementation of 2011 EECS & 2013 Solar Study. • Identify additional community-scale solar project(s) to build. Energy Organization Analysis Our first hydropower operators! Coolidge Dam circa 1930’s Possible Energy Organization Forms • Ad-hoc (case-by-case project assignment) • Government Office/Department • Joint Venture • Tribal Corporation • Utility Authority • Energy Service Company (ESCO) • Electric Cooperative Analysis included: forms of incorporation; combined multiple options; and near- and long- term phasing. Energy Organization Evaluation Criteria Rated 4 to 8 parameters for each different form of energy organization in each of the following five areas: • Sovereignty & Self-sufficiency • Economic Development & Financial Stability • Cultural & Social Values • Environmental Values & Impacts • 2011 Energy Strategy Consistency Option Evaluation Process • Ratings by Parametrix & Tribal Planning. • Refinement by oversight committee (Tribal officials, enterprise managers). • Work sessions @ 2011 Energy Summit. • Consolidate & describe outcomes. • Recommendations to Tribal Council. • ADOPTION! “Incorporate an energy utility” • IMPLEMENTATION! Work plan and incorporation papers soon to Tribal Council. Solar Feasibility Study Solar Study Objectives ** Inform sound decision-making for site selection and infrastructure development options for commercial-scale solar development in the southwestern Reservation. ** Identify opportunities for community-scale solar development in the southwestern and Bylas areas of Reservation. Solar Feasibility Study Elements Phase 1 * Assess baselines conditions, including key site characteristics * Match sites to infrastructure, generation, and transmission * Identify 2 to 3 sites for commercial-scale solar development * Identify sites for community-scale solar development Phase 2 * Conduct more detailed assessment on “finalist” sites * Document costs and benefits - economic, cultural, social * Outline financial & business plan(s) * Recommend priority sites and systems for both scales Constraints & Opportunities – Slope/Aspect Constraints & Opportunities – Land Uses/Environmental Southwestern Reservation Sites Bylas (Southeast Reservation) Commercial-scale findings • Slope (less than 4%) - LOTS of suitable land. • Aspect (southerly facing) - ditto! • Climate - highly suitable … no surprise here! • Environmental - preferred sites avoid problems • Development - preferred sites avoid conflicts • Cultural limitations - none identified • Road access - highly variable conditions • Power utilities - support programs vary greatly • Transmission - NONE for commercial-scale Possible Commercial Solar Sites: Tufa Stone and Coolidge Tufa Stone 1,950 acres Coolidge 1,218 acres “BEST” Commercial Solar Site: Peridot Mesa 1,550 acres What do we think for Phase 2? • Cost of commercial-scale transmission may be PROHIBITIVE for the foreseeable future. • Shortest new T-line to Peridot Mesa = 18 miles and $50 million. • Reserve best commercial-scale site(s) for future commercial-scale development. • Accordingly, spend more time in Phase 2 assessing nearer-term community-scale sites. • Need to examine solar energy possibilities in Bylas area on southeast side of Reservation. • Incorporate tribal energy utility business plan. Solar Feasibility Study Schedule Contact Us Come to our Tribal Energy Summit December 10-11, 2012 Apache Gold Casino/Resort San Carlos, Arizona Gail Haozous Planning & Economic Development Director P.O. Box 0, San Carlos, Arizona 85550 [email protected] www.scapacheplanning.org 928.475.2331 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • PD Safford Land Swap Appealed
    SEPTEMBER 6, 2004 PD Safford land swap appealed By Dorothy Kosich Mining Action Project is Western Land Exchange Project representing the Center for specializes in tracking federal public RENO (Mineweb.com) — No Biological Diversity, the Grand land exchange projects in the West. thanks to environmental groups, Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Previously, the Western Land water impact issues, and, maybe the Western Land Exchange Exchange Project, the Center for even the Mexican spotted owl, a Project, and Earthworks. The Biological Diversity, and the decade-long land exchange Center for Biological Diversity is a Western Mining Action Project between Phelps Dodge and the Tucson-based NGO aimed at jointly sued in Arizona’s federal Bureau of Land Management protecting endangered species district court to halt the Ray land involving the Dos Pobres/San Juan including the Mexican Spotted Owl. exchange between the Bureau of Project may not soon be The San Carlos Apache Tribe Land Management (BLM) and concluded. recently received nearly $100,000 Asarco, a subsidiary of Grupo Environmental and Native from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Mexico. The NGOs argued that the American groups have filed protests Service to study Mexican Spotted mining operation pollutes Mineral of the proposed land exchange Owls on the reservation. Tribal Creek, which is a tributary of the which would bring desperately lands include Gila, Graham and Gila River. The San Carlos Apache needed jobs to the small community Pinal counties in southeastern also appealed the Morenci Land of Safford, Arizona. The Safford Arizona. The tribe’s largest Swap, arguing mining impacts tribal Land Exchange offers 16,297 acres enterprises include the fishery of the water supplies.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Capital in the Colorado River Basin
    NATURE’S VALUE IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN NATURE’S VALUE IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN JULY, 2014 AUTHORS David Batker, Zachary Christin, Corinne Cooley, Dr. William Graf, Dr. Kenneth Bruce Jones, Dr. John Loomis, James Pittman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was commissioned by The Walton Family Foundation. Earth Economics would like to thank our project advisors for their invaluable contributions and expertise: Dr. Kenneth Bagstad of the United States Geological Survey, Dr. William Graf of the University of South Carolina, Dr. Kenneth Bruce Jones of the Desert Research Institute, and Dr. John Loomis of Colorado State University. We would like to thank our team of reviewers, which included Dr. Kenneth Bagstad, Jeff Mitchell, and Leah Mitchell. We would also like to thank our Board of Directors for their continued support and guidance: David Cosman, Josh Farley, and Ingrid Rasch. Earth Economics research team for this study included Cameron Otsuka, Jacob Gellman, Greg Schundler, Erica Stemple, Brianna Trafton, Martha Johnson, Johnny Mojica, and Neil Wagner. Cover and layout design by Angela Fletcher. The authors are responsible for the content of this report. PREPARED BY 107 N. Tacoma Ave Tacoma, WA 98403 253-539-4801 www.eartheconomics.org [email protected] ©2014 by Earth Economics. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. FUNDED BY EARTH ECONOMICS i ABSTRACT This study presents an economic characterization of the value of ecosystem services in the Colorado River Basin, a 249,000 square mile region spanning across mountains, plateaus, and low-lying valleys of the American Southwest.
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTHWEST REGION Fisheries Program Highlights (July – September 2009) December 2009
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fiscal Year 2009 Vol. 5 No. 4 REGION 2 – SOUTHWEST REGION Fisheries Program Highlights (July – September 2009) December 2009 Edited by Jeremy B. Voeltz, Arizona FWCO USFWS A biologist from the Arizona FWCO hoists a gigantic flathead catfish from San Carlos Lake Read the complete story on page 1 Turtles Thriving at Tishomingo NFH Sixty-one alligator snapping turtle juveniles hatched during September after three months of incubation at the Tishomingo NFH. After one or two years in rearing tanks the turtles will be moved to an earthen pond where they will forage for themselves for another year before being stocked into the wild. A total of 156 juvenile alligator snapping turtles were stocked into native waters in 2009. To further aid in the conservation of the snapping turtle, 30 juvenile turtles were transferred to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources for restoration efforts in USFWS Illinois and 60 juvenile turtles were released into the Caney River upstream of Hulah Lake to A one-day old snapping turtles explores its new habitat at the Tishomingo NFH supplement the population in Oklahoma. Lastly, 66 juvenile turtles were released into six different water bodies located on the Tishomingo National Wildlife refuge. Rebecca Fillmore, Tishomingo NFH Arizona FWCO Assists with Tribal Sportfish Management During August and September, biologists from the Arizona FWCO assisted our Tribal partners with lake electrofishing surveys on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and Navajo Nation. The surveys are conducted every spring and summer to analyze the sportfishing communities at several lakes in Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • Extreme Water Level Fluctuations Limit Breeding of Western and Clark's Grebes at San Carlos Lake, Arizona
    Arizona Birds - Journal of Arizona Field Ornithologists Volume 2020 EXTREME WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS LIMIT BREEDING OF WESTERN AND CLARK’S GREBES AT SAN CARLOS LAKE, ARIZONA BY DOUG JENNESS, 4375 E. ROLLINS RD., TUCSON, AZ, [email protected] ABSTRACT: The first known nesting of Western and Clark’s Grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis and A. clarkii) at San Carlos Lake in central Arizona was confirmed in 2005 and reported in 2 subsequent years. From many personal observations, analyzing eBird data, and reviewing water level records, I have determined that the acute fluctuations in water level restrict available habitat for nesting most years at the lake. Sharp drops in water level also may reduce the number of grebes. I also detected differences in the feeding behavior of the two grebe species at this location. Wintering and resident Western and Clark’s Grebes (Figures 1 and 2) are regularly found on Arizona’s larger lakes and reservoirs and have expanded their ranges in the state over the past 6 decades (Gervais-Wise 2005). Phillips et al. (1964) initially reported Western Grebes along the lower Colorado River, mainly wintering flocks with low numbers in summer. A few wintering grebes were also noted at ponds and lakes in other parts of the state. After wetland vegetation became established at the north end of Lake Havasu, the first Western Grebe nests were found there in 1966 (Rosenberg et al. 1991). They continued nesting at that location, and by the 1980s had extended their breeding to Topock Marsh, also along the lower Colorado River, and irregularly at Painted Rock Reservoir in Maricopa Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Volume I of the FEIS
    Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Volume I of the FEIS U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE December 2002 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ROOSEVELT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior December 2002 Additional information may be obtained from: Ms. Sherry Barrett Mr. Jim Rorabaugh Assistant Field Supervisor Arizona State Office Tucson Suboffice U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 110 S. Church Street, Ste. 3450 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Tucson, AZ 85701 (602) 242-0210 (520) 670-4617 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AF Acre-feet AGFD Arizona Game and Fish AMA Active Management Area AWS Assured Water Supply BA Biological Assessment BO Biological Opinion CAP Central Arizona Project CAWCS Central Arizona Water Control Study CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cities Cities with water rights in Modified Roosevelt: Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Covered species Southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, bald eagle, and yellow-billed cuckoo CRBPA Colorado River Basin Project Act Cuckoo Yellow-billed cuckoo DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement Flycatcher Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
    [Show full text]
  • Fishiilg Negulatioils
    ,L; r*1l'allql' 1997 ARTZONA FISHIilG NEGULATIOilS i,, n s NOTE: Thls eummary ol flshlng regulatlons ls prepared for convenlence only. lt le not a legal document, as lt does not contain all the laws and regulations relatlng to fishlng. For addltlonal informatlon contact any Arizona Game and Flsh Department offlce. r Tiile*r4+(nlt, baha}rbe Nature's splendor beckons you to this inlimate year. round rerort where fishermen of all ages gather to enjoy the thrill of catching a rtring of gfriped baqg, largemouth bass, catlish, bluegtll and crappie on tho watsrs and in the coves ol Lake Havasu. For the avid ficherman, the rcsort can supply the I whole gamut from bait to accommodations.and then gome. Thie tropical resort offers modern motel rooms over- looking the lake, a spacious R.V. park at thc water's edge, a 250 boat slip marina complete wlth boat repairs, 2 launch rarnpc. live bah, outo and boat fuel and r fleot of modorn househoet and small boat rentalr. I The rcsort atso offers such amenities as fine dining in the marino room overlooking the harbor, a cozy cocktait lounge, a sporting goods store complete E with a wst$uit bar, a convenience etore, an Olympic- size guest pool, and a ecenic golf course. ffii, When h comes to fishlng, the lolkg at Havssu Springs have it all packaged upfor you. I ffiffiqt Wdte or phonelor a resevation or a FREE alor bro&ure HAVASU SPRINGS RESORT *to*t rih:rtrttrffie3(5tr-; I &eu td 0nehall mile North of Parker Dam on Az.
    [Show full text]
  • Region 9 Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Sites
    FacilityID AltFacilityID Tribe Facility Name 610 AGUA006 CALIENTE SHELL) 610 AGUA006 CALIENTE SHELL) 610 AGUA006 CALIENTE SHELL) 612 AGUA008 CALIENTE CANYON COUNTRY CLUB 617 AGUA013 CALIENTE AIRPORT CAR WASH 618 AGUA014 CALIENTE CHEVRON STATION 9-3670 619 AGUA015 CALIENTE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 808 AGUA016 CALIENTE MISSION HILLS COUNTRY CLUB 808 AGUA016 CALIENTE MISSION HILLS COUNTRY CLUB 808 AGUA016 CALIENTE MISSION HILLS COUNTRY CLUB 313 BISH001 PAIUTE SERVICE STATION 313 BISH001 PAIUTE SERVICE STATION 313 BISH001 PAIUTE SERVICE STATION 313 BISH001 PAIUTE SERVICE STATION 400 CHEM001 CHEMEHUEVI HAVASU LANDING RESORT BOATHOUSE 400 CHEM001 CHEMEHUEVI HAVASU LANDING RESORT BOATHOUSE 401 CHEM003 CHEMEHUEVI THREE BUOYS MARINA 401 CHEM003 CHEMEHUEVI THREE BUOYS MARINA 401 CHEM003 CHEMEHUEVI THREE BUOYS MARINA 401 CHEM003 CHEMEHUEVI THREE BUOYS MARINA 401 CHEM003 CHEMEHUEVI THREE BUOYS MARINA 684 CMPV005 YAVAPAI- Star Mart/Texaco 403 COCO001 COCOPAH YUMA CITY LANDFILL 403 COCO001 COCOPAH YUMA CITY LANDFILL 403 COCO001 COCOPAH YUMA CITY LANDFILL 403 COCO001 COCOPAH YUMA CITY LANDFILL 403 COCO001 COCOPAH YUMA CITY LANDFILL 764 COCO003 COCOPAH BUILDING 809 COYO001 VALLEY PROPERTY 809 COYO001 VALLEY PROPERTY 809 COYO001 VALLEY PROPERTY 809 COYO001 VALLEY PROPERTY 585 CRIT001 RIVER ADOT - PARKER 585 CRIT001 RIVER ADOT - PARKER 585 CRIT001 RIVER ADOT - PARKER 405 CRIT002 RIVER TELLES RANCH INC. 405 CRIT002 RIVER TELLES RANCH INC. 405 CRIT002 RIVER TELLES RANCH INC. 559 CRIT003 RIVER HEAD START SCHOOL 559 CRIT003 RIVER HEAD START SCHOOL 559 CRIT003 RIVER HEAD START SCHOOL 596 CRIT008 RIVER KAMBUROFF AERIAL SPRAY 407 CRIT010 RIVER KING RANCH, aka BRUCE CHURCH 407 CRIT010 RIVER KING RANCH, aka BRUCE CHURCH 407 CRIT010 RIVER KING RANCH, aka BRUCE CHURCH 410 CRIT014 RIVER C.R.I.T.
    [Show full text]
  • San Carlos Apache Tribe
    DECISION DOCUMENT FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S APPROVAL OF SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE FOR TREATMENT IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS A STATE UNDER CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 518 FOR PURPOSES OF THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS UNDER CLEAN WATER ACT SECTIONS 303(c) AND 401 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background A. Introduction B. Application and Comments C. Statutory and Regulatory Provisions D. Policy Statements II. Requirements and Findings for TAS Approval A. Federal Recognition B. Substantial Governmental Duties and Powers C. Jurisdiction Over “Waters Within the Borders” of the Tribe’s Reservation 1. Map or Legal Description 2. Statement Describing the Basis for the Tribe’s Assertion of Authority 3. Identification of the Surface Waters for which the Tribe Proposes to Establish Water Quality Standards 4. EPA’s Findings on the Tribe’s Assertion of Jurisdiction over “Waters Within the Borders” of the Reservation D. Capability III. Conclusion Appendix I Application (without Attachments) Appendix II Map of Tribal Surface Waters Appendix III EPA Approval of San Carlos Apache Tribe’s previous TAS Applications (CWA 106 and CWA 319) Appendix IV Response to Comments 2 I. BACKGROUND A. Introduction Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) requires states to develop, review, and revise (as appropriate) water quality standards for surface waters of the United States. At a minimum, such standards must include designated water uses, criteria to protect such uses, and an antidegradation policy. 40 C.F.R. § 131.6. In addition, Section 401 of the CWA provides that states may grant, condition, or deny “certification” for federally permitted or licensed activities that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Affected Environment
    Chapter Three Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3.1 Introduction Chapter 3 describes environmental resources (e.g., hydrologic, biologic, and socioeconomic) of the Colorado River Basin that could be affected by the proposed federal action and the range of alternatives for implementing the proposed federal action described in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, respectively. The extent to which each specific resource may be impacted is discussed in Chapter 4. Section 3.2 presents a general discussion of the geographic scope within which potential effects of the alternatives are analyzed, and describes each of the potentially affected Colorado River reaches and water service areas. Subsequent sections in this chapter describe specific resources that may be potentially affected, such as water deliveries, recreation and biologic resources. Each resource section contains a discussion of one or more specific issues identified for consideration through scoping, public review and comment, and internal review (Chapter 1, Table 1.5-1). Final EIS – Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for 3-1 October 2007 Lake Powell and Lake Mead Affected Environment Chapter 3 This page intentionally left blank. Final EIS – Colorado River Interim Guidelines for October 2007 3-2 Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3.2 Geographic Scope The proposed federal action considers modified operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead over a wide range of reservoir elevations as addressed by the four operational elements discussed in Section 1.2, i.e., shortage conditions, coordinated operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, storage and delivery of Colorado River system and non-system water, and the modified ISG.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERIOR BOARD of INDIAN APPEALS San Carlos Apache Tribe
    INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Western Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs 41 IBIA 210 (09/19/2005) United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS 801 NORTH QUINCY STREET SUITE 300 ARLINGTON, VA 22203 SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, : Order Reversing Decisions in Part and Appellant, : Dismissing Appeals in Part : : v. : Docket Nos. IBIA 03-110-A : IBIA 04-123-A : IBIA 05-59-A WESTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR, : BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, : Appellee. : September 19, 2005 This matter involves three consolidated appeals from decisions by the Western Regional Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Regional Director; BIA) denying the San Carlos Apache Tribe (Tribe) the use of principal from the San Carlos Apache Tribe Development Trust Fund (Trust Fund) for annual purchases of water from the Central Arizona Project (CAP), a federal reclamation project. For each of the years 2003, 2004, and 2005, the Tribe applied to use the Trust Fund to purchase CAP water. In each year, the Regional Director denied those applications to the extent that they sought to use principal rather than income from the Fund. 1/ In addition, in the 2003 decision, the Regional Director refused to approve the Tribe’s application for funds to purchase a portion of the CAP water it requested until the Tribe obtained certain federal court approval. Finally, in the 2005 decision, the Regional Director specified that BIA would distribute Trust Fund income for the CAP water purchase to the Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the CAP, rather than to the Tribe.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Colorado River: Is an International Water Augmentation Consortium in Arizona’S Future?
    BEYOND THE COLORADO RIVER: IS AN INTERNATIONAL WATER AUGMENTATION CONSORTIUM IN ARIZONA’S FUTURE? Karl Kohlhoff∗ & David Roberts∗∗ I. INTRODUCTION In his book Beyond the Hundredth Meridian, Wallace Stegner wrote, “Water is the true wealth in a dry land; without it, land is worthless or nearly so.”1 In Arizona, water is the state’s lifeblood, allowing people, crops, wildlife, and industry to thrive, even in a desert. In order to obtain the highest return on its value, however, the use of water must be carefully and thoughtfully planned, developed, and managed. Current residents of Arizona are the beneficiaries of the state’s past leaders who had the vision to plan for, invest in, develop, and manage, the water resources we depend on today. Arizona’s burgeoning population is reaping the benefits of work by visionaries like George Maxwell, Governor Sidney Osborne, and Senator Carl Hayden, whose pioneering efforts in the first half of the twentieth century, and earlier, allowed this desert state to flourish.2 George Maxwell’s efforts led to the ∗ P.E., B.C.E.E., HDR Engineering. This Article is a revised version of a paper originally presented at the Water Law and Policy Conference hosted by the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law in Tucson, Arizona, on October 6–7, 2006. Articles from the Conference are collected in this symposium issue, Volume 49 Number 2, of the Arizona Law Review. For further information about the data and models presented in this Article, please contact the Authors at [email protected] and [email protected].
    [Show full text]